Now that Obama and the NYT have appointed a SP to look into "narrow issues" regarding torture by rogue interogators it is time to bait and switch with the argument that the CIA guys were innocent dupes just following orders and the real war criminals were in the White House and a politized Bush DoJ.

The prisoners, at least the HVD's anyway were debased and humiliated, made extremely uncomfortable, basically everything short of causing physical harm. Focusing on the "excessive" cases is the point of the report, as far as I can tell.

Now, the question is - was this more or less of a violation of their rights then lobbing Hellfire missiles at them while they're sleeping in Pakistan?

Hot Air had a great quote, I need to share, but am too lazy to create a link:

A few weeks ago, Eric Holder saw nothing wrong with Black Panthers using billy clubs to intimidate voters. Today, he thinks intimidating terrorists with cigars is a crime. Holder is the one who should be answering tough questions under oath.

Hope they got some good info off that bit of torture.Unless they've improved the taste of Ensure, I'd think it would be pretty effective torture. Something even nastier is that flushing laxative taken before colonoscopies.

I'm extremely uncomfortable with the publication of this much information about our interrogation techniques and processes. Am I the only person on this thread who is aware that key al Qaeda members receive training in how to resist American interrogation techniques? You can be taught what to expect and how to resist, and you can even be taught how to resist waterboarding to some extent. In fact the report about the information collected from the three waterboarded prisoners specifically mentions that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was trained in resistance techniques.

Heck, we trained our own guys back during the Vietnam War in how to resist interrogation, based on what the US Army learned after the Korean War. There's no secret about it. But the more we disclose our own techniques, processes, and the limits of what we can and can't do, the more other side can prepare their most key people in case they're caught.

"Now that Obama and the NYT have appointed a SP to look into 'narrow issues' regarding torture by rogue interogators it is time to bait and switch with the argument that the CIA guys were innocent dupes just following orders and the real war criminals were in the White House and a politized Bush DoJ."

Well, the CIA guys were not "innocent dupes," even if they were told--a big "if"--that their grotesque abuse of other human beings was "legal." One does not have to be told to know when one has crossed the line, and these professionals surely knew they had done so. In fact, it's been reported many were concerned about legal consequences for their actions. As well they should have been. Too bad none (that we know of) had the courage to refuse orders to torture their prisoners.

As for the "real war criminals," of course it was Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Addington and Rice and others who ordered and directed the Bush torture program, (not to mention our illegal invasion of Iraq). There's no question of that and anybody who has been paying attention knows that. Unfortunately, I have little faith that any narrow investigation of "bad apples" who, in their interrogations, "went beyond" that which Yoo's egregious memos pretended to make legal, will lead to prosecution or punishment for the capos in the Bush crime family who are the actual monsters here. Those at the top of the Bush administration are among the great criminals of modern times.

The other day on the front page of the NYT there was an article on this CIA "torture." Right next to it was an article on the abuse of children in New York's juvenile detention centers. Bottom line: you'd much rather be in the hands of the CIA than the State of New York. Now the state-sponsored child abuse story has disappeared from the news--since Bush can't be blamed for it, it's just a distraction from the really important story.

"Am I the only person on this thread who is aware that key al Qaeda members receive training in how to resist American interrogation techniques? You can be taught what to expect and how to resist, and you can even be taught how to resist waterboarding to some extent. In fact the report about the information collected from the three waterboarded prisoners specifically mentions that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was trained in resistance techniques.

Heck, we trained our own guys back during the Vietnam War in how to resist interrogation, based on what the US Army learned after the Korean War."

There's no such thing as being able to be trained to "resist" torture. An individual may be able to "resist" for a fractional time longer than another, but that comes down to individual capacity to endure pain or stress, but everybody breaks...everybody. Stop reading comic books and realize that John McCain and our other soldiers who were tortured broke and told what they knew, as well as admitting to "crimes" that were fictions, just as our torture victims admit to crimes that are fictions.

Robert Cook -- your mask slipped, sock puppet. If you were a real liberal, you'd know that our official MoveOn.org talking points stipulate that TORTURE IS NEVER EFFECTIVE.

By saying that eventually everyone breaks, you've revealed that you're actually a conservative mole, trying to discredit liberalism with your over-the-top mincing about "grotesque abuse of other human beings".

Loafing Oaf, Robert Cook, et al, the fact that you find water boarding (swirlies), blowing smoke, slapping, and sleep deprivation to be too harsh to apply to murderers who decapitate unarmed men, hang women, and stone homosexuals says more about you than it does about the intelligence officers who performed this thankless duty to keep you safe.

I'd imagine that you're also too squeamish to ever shoot another human being; but that doesn't mean that those who lack such a delicate constitution and are able to defend themselves or their country are any less moral than you. They're just less squeamish.

I bet you also find hunting to be morally repugnant, even though you like a good burger. The fact that you don't have the stomach to make that burger from scratch (from a steer) doesn't make the process immoral. It makes you a pussy.

"Well I don't consider Islamofascist thugs who cheerfully saw the heads off innocent people while singing God is Great to be in the same category as human beings."

Aside from the fact that our laws, not to mention simply human decency, make no distinction between saints or sinners with regard to the permissability of torture, you don't know and none of us know that anyone we have tortured is guilty of anything. They have never been tried, and evidence has never been produced to show such allegations to be true. Even assuming torture were palatable if applied only to head-sawing thugs--although it is not--aren't you uncomfortable with torture being applied to persons who may simply be hapless innocents who were caught up in dragnets or sold to us by bounty hunters? In fact, most of them are simply that, as evidenced by the great many we have released after years of imprisonment. (My question, by the way, is rhetorical. I'm sure if you're comfortable with torture as a legitimate weapon for us to deploy, you have no patience for such small matters as the actual guilt or innocence of those we torture.)

Cook wrote There's no such thing as being able to be trained to "resist" torture. An individual may be able to "resist" for a fractional time longer than another, but that comes down to individual capacity to endure pain or stress, but everybody breaks...everybody.

Awesome - you have now agreed that torture works (as we always knew it did). This isn't an episode of Law & Order where the cops are looking for a confession - we want to know the name of the safe house in Qetta. Torture to get a "confession" is useless - the subject will just lie to make the pain stop, be we are looking for verifiable information. If you lie, we will know and then things will only get worse. Sure you could give up the 2nd most important safe house in Qetta, but we're still getting some value.

"Awesome - you have now agreed that torture works (as we always knew it did)."

Really, dude, is this your big "gotcha!"? No one who says "torture doesn't work" means the victims of torture don't give information; to the contrary, victims of torure will talk and talk to make the pain stop, and they will fabricate plots and implicate anyone they can name just to seek relief. Those who may know something will tell what they know and then keep inventing simply to appease their torturers. This flood of invented "confessions" impeaches the veracity of all information gained.

This is a simple enough concept to grasp, and that so many don't is testament to the low mental acuity of so many Americans.

That aside, the question of "does torture work" is a red herring, a diversion used consciously by those who favor or use torture to poison discussion of the topic.

Well, I don't think anyone since I posted has addressed the point I was trying to make. It's rude to post in all caps, but I'd be tempted to do so if I thought it had a prayer of getting through.

(1) Public disclosure of the techniques used by our interrogators -- and in particular the limits beyond which they cannot go hurts our ability to collect actionable intelligence data.

(2) Actionable intelligence data has nothing to do with obtaining confessions or any other part of the legal system. The goal is to discover knowledge that can be used to save lives, either directly (by thwarting plots) or indirectly (by identifying other plotters, regardless of the state of their plots).

(3) I deliberately avoided the word "torture," because (a) it is a loaded term deliberately used to obfuscate the question under discussion, and because (b) what we did was not torture. The detainees suffered no lasting injuries, and their mental faculties are intact. This is in direct contrast with Senator McCain, who has limited use of his arms.

(4) This is war. You make a mistake and Americans die. I am struck by the notion that not everybody -- and I mean you, Cook and McGee, think dead Americans is a bad thing.

"This is war. You make a mistake and Americans die. I am struck by the notion that not everybody -- and I mean you, Cook and McGee, think dead Americans is a bad thing.'

A war we started, an unnecessary war. I do think dead Americans is a bad thing, but I think the murder of thousdands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan; as well as the maiming and the rendering homeless of many many thousands more; as well as our destruction of an entire nation's infrastructure and social cohesion; as well as our detention and torture of untold numbers of others in prisons secret and not secret; as well as the corruption of our principles, and our repudiation of the rule of law is worse.

Aside from the original 3000 murdered by a gang of criminals on 9/11, nearly every other American that has died since died because we put them in harm's way to prosecute an illegal war.

1. The war was authorized by Congress. You don't get do-overs after you authorize war.

2. War is hell. I think we should make it more hellish for the enemy than they could have ever imagined.

3. I view the Geneva Accords as non-binding when the enemy ignores them, or as in the case of terrorism has never adopted them. The only protection our troops have against being treated like John McCain or even Danny Pearl and Nick Berg is the fear of what will happen to our enemies when we win or capture them.

4. I have nothing but contempt for those who want to score political points by revisiting decisions of a prior administration. The Justice Department already decided that this did not merit prosecution. So when we get a Republican President again will we get a prosecution of Eric Holder? That's no way to run a republic.

Yes, he is. It doesn't make a tingle go up my leg to say it, though, as it didn't when I said it about Gee Dubya...I'm ashamed that we have yet another administration carrying on these atrocious policies of visiting mass murder and misery on people around the world.

Of course. Americans are not the elect of the world, and our lives are not more valuable than the lives of anyone else. As terrible was was the murder of 3000 Americans 8 years ago, is not the murder of many more thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan more terrible? While the crime of 9/11 was committed by a gang of stateless criminal fanatics, we are responsible as a nation for the destruction of an entire society in Iraq, a land that posed absolutely no threat to us.